The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

Obama and the Media - Where Seldom, or Never is Heard a Discouraging Word -
How the Press, Television and Google helped to fix an election

By The Neville Awards
November 28, 2008

The 2008 election is the culmination of 40 year fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people.

Newsflash!!! - the press was in the tank for Obama during the says Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell:

"Readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

Howell examined The Post's political coverage since Nov. 11, 2007. "Numbers don't tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post's priorities," Powell said.

The number of Obama stories was 946, compared with 786 centered on John McCain until the presidential nominations were completed in June, she found. From then to Election Day, the tally was 626 stories for Mr. Obama, 584 for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama was also on the front page 176 times, Mr. McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both candidates.

"The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement," Ms. Howell said.

According to Howell The Post also ran more photographs of Mr. Obama. Since June 4, Mr. Obama was in 311 Post photos and Mr. McCain in 282. The Democrat also got splashier treatment, garnering larger pictures (133 to 121, respectively) and more color shots (164 to 133).

And this from Time Magazine's Mark Halperin at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election:

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Halperin was asked at the forum to name the #1 reason the media boosted Obama. He replied that it was the desire to see him simultaneously "etched in glass" and "on Mount Rushmore."

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

What a surpise!! We at The Neville Awards are shocked...SHOCKED!!! to find press bias in the liberal media.

The real question is why are they telling us now, after the damage is done...and why hasn't Mark Halperin and the Post's editor resigned in the face of journalistic fraud and malfeasance?

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that the press wanted Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. The same analysis found a Democrat-friendly press dating back to the 1992 presidential election.

From the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism:

The Color of News-How Different Media Have Covered the General Election

When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference, according to a new study.

In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign.

Things look much better for Barack Obama—and much worse for John McCain—on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.

The tone of CNN’s coverage, meanwhile, lay somewhere in the middle of the cable spectrum, and was generally more negative than the press overall.

On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere. On the network morning shows, Sarah Palin is a bigger story than she is in the media generally.

And on NBC News programs, there was no reflection of the tendency of its cable sibling MSNBC toward more favorable coverage of Democrats and more negative of Republicans than the norm.

Online, meanwhile, polling tended to drive the news. And on the front pages of newspapers, which often have the day-after story, things look tougher for John McCain than they tend to in the media overall.

These are some of the findings of the study, which examined 2,412 stories from 48 outlets during the time period from September 8 to October 16. [1] [1] The report is a companion to a study released October 22 about the tone of coverage overall. This new report breaks down the coverage of tone by specific media sectors—print, cable news, network television and online.

The story continues below

Among the findings:
  • MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).
  • On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
  • CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
  • The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC’s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
  • At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral—and also less negative—than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.
These findings augment what was learned from a broader report on campaign media coverage released a week earlier entitled “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.”

[2] That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

And finally this from The Patriot Room and World Net Daily:

November 28th, 2008

Google’s Final Assault on Right-Wing Blogs - Has The Left Won It All?

by Bill Dupray

The MSM’s nauseating, pro-Obama bias during the campaign was almost too much to bear. The Libs won, and the un-Fairness Doctrine is on the front burner, once again taking aim at right-wing talk radio.

The fallback position for Conservatives has always been, “well, we always have the right-wing blogs.” But even that has been somewhat in dispute. During the campaign, many anti-Obama blogs running on Blogger software were shut down by Google, which owns the software. That may have been due to Obamabots’ falsely (imagine that) complaining to Google that the sites were spammers, in which case the company’s policy of shutting down the sites pending an investigation kicked in and the bloggers were out of business. The moonbats succeeded in shutting down Republican blogs and Pro-Hillary blogs.

Now it appears that Google is trying to finish off the right-wing blogosphere once and for all. Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs, has written a lot about Obama’s birth certificate controversy. She had a very high Google ranking for those search terms. Google, in a blatant attempt to protect Obama (Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, was a staunch Obama supporter and was in line for a cabinet post) has decided that the story is not newsworthy, and has stripped Gellar of her rankings, a technique known as “sandboxing.”

From World Net Daily:

Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs claims the search engine giant has banned her groundbreaking articles about Obama – a technique many people refer to as “sandboxing.”

“There was no warning, no notice, nothing,” Gellar told WND. “They have basically sandboxed me.”

“Sandboxing” happens when Google strips a website’s rankings from its search engine results. According to some theories, this happens to new websites when Google puts them into a holding area known as a “sandbox” until the site gains credibility.

However, Atlas Shrugs is not new, and Gellar believes her stories have been intentionally suppressed by the Internet giant – especially ones about President-elect Obama. She said her exclusive stories about Obama’s birth certificate that once received thousands of hits every day will not come up in Google word searches.

“I was in the top five search results before the story got legs,” she said. “These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day.”

But now a November earnings report from shows her Google clicks and revenue flat lining since Nov. 20. Daily page impressions dropped from an average of 20,000 and 45,000 to single digits – overnight. Also, her Google images hits are slowed to only 4,720 since that day, while Yahoo and other search engines list them in the hundreds of thousands.

“The media gives blogs the silent treatment,” she said. “The only thing we have is these searches. The Google word search is gone – all gone. When you are in my business, that’s how you build readership.”

The Marxist victory over free speech and thought is almost complete. The 2008 election is the culmination of 40 year fraud that has been perpetrated on the American people.

With the coming of the Fairness Doctrine that Marxist victory is at hand. The last bastion of conservative thought, talk radio will be silenced. Only a protracted court battle, both to stop Google from it's attempt shut down the blogs, and to stop the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine will keep Conservatism alive and well.
Reading List